report: planning committee 13.09.12: part i - (10) 12 1213 ... … · web view10. 12/1213/aod -...

10. 12/1213/AOD - Approval of details: Details pursuant to condition 2 of outline planning permission 10/2230/OUT comprising the appearance, layout and scale of the buildings and landscaping for Phase 1 of the Leavesden Park scheme to provide 123 residential dwellings (including 43 affordable dwellings) and 1142sqm of flexible commercial floor pace (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, A5 and D1), a new public square, hard and soft landscaping, new open space and a children’ play area with associated highways and infrastructure works

and

12/1214/AOD - Approval of details: Details pursuant to condition 2 of outline planning permission 10/2230/OUT comprising the appearance, layout and scale of the buildings and landscaping for Phase 2 of the Leavesden Park Scheme to provide 99 residential dwellings (including 35 affordable dwellings), hard and soft landscaping with associated highways and infrastructure works

At LAND AT LEAVESDEN AERODROME, AERODROME WAY AND LAND NORTH OF SOUTH WAY, ABBOTS LANGLEY, HERTS for Bellway Homes (North London)(DCES)

Parish: Abbots Langley Parish Council Ward: LeavesdenExpiry Statutory Period: 27 September 2012 Officer: Mrs K. Rowley

This report is presented to Members to outline the key considerations and issues with regard to applications 12/1213/AOD and 12/1214/AOD.

1. Planning History (covering the whole Leavesden Aerodrome site)

1.1 Background

1.1.1 The Leavesden Aerodrome site has a complex planning history. The site, which originally included land now developed to the east, has previously been owned by the Ministry of Defence where it was an important centre for the production of Mosquito and Halifax aircraft during World War II; and by Rolls Royce where it was used for manufacture of helicopter engines until 1993. At its peak, the site employed over 3000 people, but this had been reduced to approximately 1800 by 1991. The airfield remained open for flying until March 1994, being used by a private flying club; the Leavesden Flight Centre. At its peak in 1990, there were some 60,000 aircraft movements at the site.

1.1.2 In 1995 the site was purchased by Third Millennium Group and part of the site was used as a film production studios. In 1999, the site was purchased by MEPC who have leased the studios to Warner Bros. since 2000.

1.2 Planning Brief

1.2.1 A Planning Brief was prepared by Three Rivers District Council and Watford Borough Council and approved for the site in 1993. This set out the principles to guide future development of the overall Leavesden Aerodrome site (totalling 119 hectares). The basic concept was to constrain development to the eastern part of the site and release the remainder of the site to form an attractive and accessible Green Belt wedge between Abbots Langley and Watford.

/tt/file_convert/5fb8536f803ca2366a7d3336/document.doc 1

1.3 Relevant Planning History for Site including Housing and Office Development to East

1.3.1 94/450/8 - Change of use to film studio and ancillary activities for a temporary period. Approved.

1.3.2 95/0221/8 (Outline) – Application submitted by Third Millennium Group for part demolition and redevelopment of film studios, studio tour, family leisure centre, class B1 business, residential and leisure use together with formation of new estate roads and access to A41. Granted with Section 106 agreement. Condition 4 stated that redevelopment, including ‘all buildings, parking, hardstanding, storage, landscaping directly related to those buildings and site access roads, both retained and new with the exception of the existing runway and the spine road south of the residential development’, shall not exceed 32 hectares. Condition 5 stated that a minimum of 300 houses were to be provided. The application was accompanied by an illustrative layout plan, subsequently amended in 1998 (‘concept plan’), giving an indication of the form and location of development intended. The residential dwellings, spine road, and three of four office blocks have since been completed under various Approval of Details applications outlined below (namely 98/0711, 99/01231/AOD, 00/00208/AOD and 00/00209/FUL). Details were never submitted pursuant to the film studio, studio tour and leisure elements of this outline consent.

1.3.3 95/364 - Continuation of use in non-compliance with condition 2 of planning permission 94/450/8 (requiring cessation of the temporary film studio use by 21 July 1995). Approved.

1.3.4 96/0734 - Change of use of film studios and ancillary activities for a temporary period. Approved.

1.3.5 97/0015 - Variation of condition 9 of 95/0221/8 to provide access to spine road from Hill Farm Avenue. Approved.

1.3.6 98/0711/8 - Formation of spine road (reserved matters) including link with Hill Farm Avenue and link with signal controlled junction at Ashfields (pursuant to condition 9 of 95/0221/8) and associated landscape details for spine road corridor (in pursuant in part of condition 21 of 95/221/8). Approved. Spine road completed and adopted as a public highway in 1999.

1.3.7 99/01231/AOD - Erection of 314 dwellings and formation of vehicular and pedestrian access phase 1. Approved and implemented.

1.3.8 99/02099/AOD - Amendment to previously approved application 99/01231/AOD in respect of 9 plots in housing area 3 (nos 40,41,48,49 and 54-59) (12/14 Merlin Way, 22,24,26,28,30,32,44,44 Dowding Way). Approved.

1.3.9 00/00208/AOD - (Reserved matters application pursuant to outline application reference 95/221/8) erection of office development comprising of 3, 4 storey blocks and part of 1, 4 storey block subject to application reference 00/0209/FUL with associated access, parking and landscaping, and; 00/00209/FUL - Erection of part of one four storey block in conjunction with application plan ref. 00/00208/AOD. Both applications approved subject to S106 Agreements.

1.3.10 00/00392/FUL - Erection of 315 dwellings and formation of vehicular and pedestrian access. Withdrawn.


1.3.11 00/01646/OUT - (Outline application) development totalling a maximum of 121,500 sqm of floor space including B1 development comprising offices, research and development and light industry; film studios, public open space, landscaping and internal access roads. Refused.

1.3.12 01/00001/OUT - (Outline) Application submitted by MEPC for phased development of the site totalling a maximum of 121,500sqm of floor space including B1 development comprising offices, research and development and light industry: film studios. Landscaping, open spaces and internal access roads. Resolved to be approved subject to S106 agreement; this agreement was never signed. Application withdrawn.

1.3.13 01/0629/AOD, 01/0632/AOD, 01/0633/AOD, 01/0634/AOD – Approval of Details applications for revisions to plots on Westland Close and Dowding Way. Approved.

1.3.14 02/00153/FUL - Change of use: continuation of planning permission 96/0734/8 use of land for film studios and ancillary activities. Approved.

1.3.15 04/0544/FUL - Continued use of buildings and land as film studios and ancillary activities for a temporary period to 31st August 2008. Approved.

1.3.16 05/1036/FUL - Departure from Local Plan: Erection of a temporary storage building relating to use of adjacent land as film studios for a temporary 3 year period. Approved.

1.3.17 06/0529/FUL - Variation of condition 1 of planning permission 04/0544: Continued use of buildings and land as film studios and ancillary activities for a temporary period to 31st December 2010. Approved.

1.3.18 06/0757/FUL - Variation of Condition 1 of planning permission 05/1036/FUL to extend temporary permission until 31 December 2010 (studios). Approved.

1.3.19 10/0080/FUL - Continued use of land and buildings for film production and associated activities including retention and refurbishment of existing studios to accommodate stages, backlot, workshops, offices, production facilities, canteen /commissary and ancillary studio facilities and services, replacement and extended workshops, stage and offices. Two new stages (approx. 13,000 sqm floor space) for the storage and public exhibition of film sets and artefacts (including cafe and gift shop), new accesses from Aerodrome Way, revised internal road layout and parking, extended backlot, landscaping and associated works. Approved with a S106 Agreement. This consent is currently being implemented.

1.3.20 10/2230/OUT - Outline Application: For the construction of up to 425 dwellings, flexible mixed use centre comprising 2,350 sqm of A1, A2, A3, A5 and D1 uses, hotel (8,500 sqm), and associated parking, means of access and associated infrastructure works and use of agricultural land (The Horse field) and the former Furtherfield tip for public open space. (Matters reserved: Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale). Approved 7 December 2012 following completion of a S106 Agreement. This is the outline application subject of these reserved matters applications.

1.3.21 10/2425/FUL - Erection of an electricity sub-station (in connection with redevelopment of the Studios under reference 10/0080/FUL). Approved 26 January 2011.

1.3.22 11/0376/RSP - Part retrospective: Amendments to planning permission 10/0080/FUL to include: Reduction and modifications to K Stage, modifications


to J Stage and revised layout of external display areas; revised layout of security gatehouses, internal road layout (temporary consent sought for internal road link) and cycle storage; minor realignment of spur access from northern roundabout; revised landscaping including re-profiling and realignment of bunds; new paved area for picnic use and security hut; revised materials for car park; and associated works. (No alteration to operation of visitor centre, visitor numbers, no. of parking spaces or traffic generation as per the section 106 agreement dated 15 June 2010). Approved 19 May 2011 with a deed of variation to the Section 106 Agreement.

1.3.23 11/0590/RSP – Part retrospective: Revised layout for the northern part of Leavesden Studios (previously approved under application 10/0080/FUL), including demolition and replacement of the Mill building to be built in two phases, the relocation and construction of the approved multi-purpose workshop building, revised parking layout, hard and soft landscaping including omission of bunding and associated ancillary works. Approved 20 June 2011.

1.3.24 11/1607/ADV - A total of 9 individual advertisement signs, including directional signage, at Warner Bros. Studios Leavesden and the associated Studio Tour (including externally illuminated entrance signs, fascia signs and poster advertisements). Approved 21 September 2011.

1.3.25 12/0344/FUL - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission 10/0080/FUL to allow substitution of plans to reflect minor amendments to design. Approved.

1.3.26 12/0345/FUL - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission 11/0376/RSP to allow substitution of plans to reflect minor amendments to design. Approved.

1.3.27 12/0346/FUL - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission 11/0590/RSP to allow substitution of plans to reflect minor amendments to design. Approved.

1.3.28 12/1150/FUL - Amendments to flight shed at Warner Bros. Studios comprising minor modifications to the existing fabric of the building, replacement cladding to the west elevation and removal of the 'beehive' ventilation units (cross boundary application). Approved.

1.3.29 12/1197/NMA - Non Material Amendment to planning permission 10/2230/OUT: Amendments to the approved access details (drawings 193301F/IMP;19330IF/PP) to remove vehicular access point from South Way and the alteration of one vehicle access point to pedestrian /cycle access on Aerodrome Way. Approved.

1.3.30 There have been numerous applications to discharge conditions for the planning consents relating to the Studios site, all of which have now been implemented.

2. Detailed Description of Proposed Development

2.1 These reserved matters submissions relate to Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the development proposals granted outline consent ref 10/2230/OUT. All matters, except for access, were reserved for future consideration. However, the proposals have been developed in accordance with the parameter plans approved as part of the outline consent, the outline consent conditions and the requirements of the associated S106 Legal Agreement. Essentially the parameters plan confirmed the number of private and affordable units (up to 425 units with 35% affordable housing), an 8500sqm floorspace hotel, a 2350sqm floorspace commercial centre comprising A1, A2, A3, A5 and D1 uses, new access points from Aerodrome Way with secondary access points from South Way and an average density of 40 dwellings per hectare, with densities greater


towards the western side of the site nearest the film studios and adjacent offices and reducing in density to the north and east.

2.2 In addition a Phasing Plan has been submitted and agreed pursuant to condition 4 of the outline permission. The approved Phasing Plan detailed a 5 phase scheme, the hotel comprising the fifth and final phase. Notwithstanding this approved phasing Officers have been made aware Bovis Homes have now acquired Phase 2 and whilst the current applicant, Bellway Homes, will continue to obtain the relevant consents, Bovis Homes would implement the Phase 2 consent simultaneously with Bellway Homes implementation of Phase 1. Bellways have confirmed they intend to seek consent for and implement Phases 3 and 4. Bellway Homes have not acquired the hotel aspect of the scheme; this land is still owned by the original applicant MEPC.

2.3 The 2 schemes detail the proposals for the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of Phase 1 and 2 of the residential component (with some commercial floorspace) of the outline scheme.

2.4 Phase 1 comprises a 4.7ha site with consent sought for the construction of 123 dwellings including 43 affordable dwellings. Part of the approved mixed use centre would be focused around a public square. This commercial floor space totalling 1284.4sqm (gross external floor area) would be built in a four and five storey block comprising commercial floor space at ground and first floor level with flatted residential development above. The layout details remain indicative at this stage but would allow a range of uses including A1, A2, A3, A5 and D1 uses. This commercial space would frame the western edge of the new public square.

2.5 The new public square would then extend northwards to South Way and form a landscaped public open space containing a children's play area. Some of the landscape would be contoured to form a natural amphitheatre.

2.6 Phase 1 would be served by a new access from the signalled controlled junction with Aerodrome Way/Hercules Way. A new secondary access point would be constructed further west along Aerodrome Way which would serve Phases 1 and 2. In addition 2 new access points would be constructed from South Way serving 6 and 4 dwellings respectively. There would be no vehicular through route across the site from South Way to Aerodrome Way.

2.7 Phase 2 extends to a 2.6 ha site and would comprise 99 dwellings including 35 affordable units. Phase 2 sits between Phase 1 and the western site boundary which adjoins with Leavesden Studios.

2.8 The schemes incorporate a range of building heights, predominantly 2 storey residential dwellings, interspersed with 2.5 and 3 storey dwellings. Flats are contained in a 4 and 5 storey block in Phase 1 (private and affordable units) and one 3 and 4 storey block in Phase 2 (affordable units).

2.9 289 parking spaces are proposed in Phase 1 including 7 unallocated visitor spaces. In Phase 2 228 allocated spaces are proposed. There are an additional 25 parking spaces provided within the new public square to serve the commercial floorspace and a further 5 employee parking spaces.

2.10 Refuse collection points have been illustrated on the plans with refuse storage either to the side/rear of each dwelling and to be accessed through a garage or side access. Each flatted development would be provided with refuse and cycle stores.


2.11 It is proposed to finish the development in a traditional style with red brick or light buff brick, feature brick detail, with some white rendering to provide variety to the street scene.

2.12 The Phase 1 and 2 sites are part of the 15.36 hectare of land which formed the northern section of the former Leavesden Aerodrome site. The wider site is bound by Aerodrome Way to the south and east with South Way to the north. The open space known as the Horsesfield and the residential area of Abbots Langley lies beyond to the north. Leavesden Studios lies to the west/south west. The majority of the wider site comprises vacant scrubland although the previous ecological assessments detail some specific habitats and wildlife which has been detailed later in the report. Buildings associated with the previous site uses have been largely removed with some areas of hard standing remaining. The site slopes uphill from south to north with other areas of uneven land and bunds. There are a number of trees across the site, predominantly situated on the site boundaries, with trees on the western site boundary protected by a TPO.

2.13 The applications are supported by the following statements:

Planning Statement Design and Access Statement Transport Statement Energy Demand Statement and C Plan Statement, Bio Diversity Checklist

and Statement of Community Involvement

2.14 Prior to the submission of these applications a 2 day exhibition event was held in addition to Member and Parish Council briefings. The outline application had also been subject to extensive consultation prior to its submission.

2.15 Formal Screening Opinion requests were received in relation to both Schemes 1 and 2 in accordance with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. TRDC provided responses dated 13 June 2012 and 25 June 2012 confirming an Environmental Impact Assessment was not required on either application.

2.16 Following initial concerns of Officers further details and amended plans have been received. These amendments essentially improve relationships between buildings, there has been some increase in garden sizes, increase in the amount of street landscaping, revision to the affordable housing layouts, garden access points been added for refuse, removal of shiplap boarding as a proposed material and proposed changes to the layout of the footpaths in the public open space (amended landscaping plan awaited). The briefing report is based on these amended plans.

3. Consultation

3.1 Abbots Langley Parish Council – no objections.

British Pipeline Agency – no comments to make.

Environment Agency – As part of the outline application 10/2230/OUT we requested a condition to ensure that surface water run-off was limited and that the most beneficial use of SuDS were incorporated in the detailed design (your condition 22). As we have no further detailed information relating to the drainage strategy we need to ensure that the development is still able to comply with this condition. The proposed development will only be acceptable if a planning condition is included requiring the drainage details (as suggested).


Fire Protection Officer – we do not have any comments to make at this time. Further comments will be made when we receive the Building Regulations application.

Furtherfield Residents Association – no comments received.

HCC Archaeology - The Historic Environment Record notes that an Iron Age and Roman settlement was found at Leavesden Aerodrome when the housing estate immediately to the east of the site was constructed. The site appeared to have been disturbed in the area of the (now demolished) factory buildings, but also contained some linear features and deep pits (which were thought to be evidence of gravel extraction) (HER10048). The site was also a Word War II airfield and aeroplane factory, making Halifax bombers and then Mosquitos. It continued to be used after the war and was taken over by Hawker Siddeley and then Rolls Royce until 1993 (HER9041).

The proposed development is therefore likely to have an impact on heritage assets, and I recommend that the following provisions be made, should you be minded to grant consent:

1. The archaeological recording of the standing structures in their present form, before any demolition or development commences.

2. The archaeological evaluation of the proposed development site before any development commences.

3. Such appropriate mitigation measures indicated as necessary by that evaluation, which may include:

a) the preservation of any remains in situ, if warranted,

b) appropriate archaeological excavation of any remains before any development commences on the site, with provisions for subsequent analysis and publication of results,

c) archaeological monitoring of any other groundworks of the development (also including a contingency for the preservation or further investigation of any remains then encountered),

d) such other provisions as may be necessary to protect the archaeological interests of the site.

4. The analysis of the results of the archaeological work and the production of a report

I believe that these recommendations are both reasonable and necessary to provide properly for the likely archaeological implications of this development proposal. I further believe that these recommendations closely follow the policies included within Planning Policy Statement 5 (HE7, HE12 etc.) and the guidance contained in the Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide. In this case three appropriately worded conditions on any planning consent would be sufficient to provide for the level of investigation that this proposal warrants. I suggest the following wording (based on model condition 55 DoE circ. 11/95):

A No demolition/development shall take place/commence until an Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. The scheme


shall include an assessment of archaeological significance and research questions; and:

1. The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording

2. The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording as suggested by the archaeological evaluation

3. The programme for post investigation assessment

4. Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording

5. Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation

6. Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation

7. Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works set out within the Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation.

B The demolition/development shall take place/commence in accordance with the programme of archaeological works set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition (A)

C The development shall not be occupied/used until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the programme set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition (A) and the provision made for analysis and publication where appropriate.

If planning consent is granted, I will be able to provide a design brief detailing the requirements for the investigations and provide information on professionally accredited archaeological contractors who may be able to carry out the investigations. Please allow 5-10 working days for this document to be issued and a further 5-10 working days for consideration of any submitted archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation. The applicant should send a copy of this letter to their archaeological contractor.

HCC Forward Planning – no comments received.

HCC Property – no comments received.

HCC Public Rights of Way Section – our comments with regard to the development would be to offer attractive off road routes to link communities for example making safe crossing areas across Langley Lane to link Leavesden Country Park and an off road multi user route along the boundary of South Way to link to Gypsy Lane.

If and when this development is to proceed any public Right of Way should be protected to a minimum width of 2m.

Also make the following comments on the potential impacts the development works might entail and the required minimum standards regarding maintenance of the Public’s rights and safety during and after construction.


Public Rights of Way must remain unobstructed by vehicles, machinery, materials, tools and any other aspects of the construction during works.

The safety of the public using the route and any other routes to be used by construction traffic should be a paramount concern during works, safe passage past the site should be maintained at all times.

The condition of the route must not deteriorate as a result of these works. Any adverse affects to the surface from traffic, machinery or materials to be made good by the applicant to the satisfaction of this Authority.

All materials to be removed at the end of construction and not left on the Highway or Highway verges

If the above conditions cannot reasonably be achieved then a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order would be required to close the affected route and divert users for any periods necessary to allow works to proceed. A fee would be payable to Herts CC for such an order.

If it is necessary to install any scaffolding on the route or pipes/cables under the path permission must first be obtained from this office.

HCC Waste and Minerals Section – no comments received.

Herts and Middx Wildlife Trust - no comments received.

Hertfordshire Biological Records Centre – no comments received.

Hertfordshire Constabulary - Still in discussions with the applicant and trying to get improved security across the site, however, disappointing that the whole development will not be to Secured by Design standards.

Hertfordshire Highways – This application is for the approval of reserved matters pursuant to condition 2 of the outline permission 10/2230/OUT for Phase 1 of the Leavesden Park scheme. Condition 2 requires ‘Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale (herein called the reserved matters) in any phase shall be approved before any development in that Phase begins and the development in that Phase shall be carried out as approved’. The concept of the development was described as: the primary access points to the development will be from Aerodrome Way via the signal controlled junctions; there will be some restricted accesses to small clusters of private properties from Aerodrome Way and South Way; there will be no vehicle route through the site between Aerodrome Way and South Way. The applicant has indicated that: vehicle access to Phase 1 will be provided via a new access into the site from the existing signal controlled junction on Aerodrome Way; a new access will be created further west along Aerodrome Way; new access points will be provided to serve Phase 1 on South Way; there will be no vehicle link through the site between Aerodrome Way and South Way. The applicant also indicates that although the signal controlled junctions were considered in detail for the outline application the new access further west along Aerodrome Way was not analysed but this has now been considered and Hertfordshire Highways have agreed this proposed access has sufficient capacity to accommodate the anticipated development traffic. Under these circumstances there is no objection in principle to the layout but many of the estate roads on this development are being considered for adoption as public highway and the layout of these roads will be agreed as part of a Section 38 agreement. The submitted plans do not show the dimensions of the estate roads (widths of carriageway and footway, radii of bellmouth at junctions, etc) and I have been advised that Technical


Approval has not yet been given to the layout of these estate roads. As Technical Approval has not been granted for the layout of these roads the County Council considers a condition is required that these details are approved prior to works commencing on the construction of these estate roads. Many of the roads will be Major or Minor access roads with footways but some can be shared surface street which comply with the following. A Shared Surface Street is a residential road without footways. Subject to making provision for disabled people it [email protected] should have the following features: be short in length or be a short cul-de-sac; carry a volume of motor traffic below 100 vehicles per hour (peak); have actively managed parking; should differ in colour or texture (preferably both) from that of adjoining roads.

Under the circumstances I recommend the following condition;

(1) Notwithstanding the submitted details the development shall not begin until details of the layout and construction of the new estate roads have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with the Highway Authority. No dwelling shall be occupied until the estate road that provides access to it has been laid out and constructed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and the development.

Highways Agency – no comments received.

London Underground – no objection

National Grid – no comments received.

Natural England – From the information provided with this application it does not fall within the scope of the consultations Natural England would routinely comment upon. The lack of specific comment from Natural England should not ne interpreted as a statement that there are no impacts on the natural environment, but only that the application is not likely to result in significant impacts on statutory designated sites, landscapes or species. For the LPA to determine whether this application is consistent with national and local policies on biodiversity and landscape.

Sport England – Sport England does not wish to comment on this particular application.

Thames Water – Spoke verbally to Thames Water having received an initial no comment and they advised that provided previous condition on outline consent adhered to regarding a drainage strategy they have no further comments.

The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association - The areas where we (Guide Dogs) have some initial concerns are: - 1. Mews streets/lane - possible plans to create a shared surface 2. The Square - "the square will be designed as a shared space where pedestrians and, cyclists and vehicles mingle within the same space"

The shared space concept is intended to be a way to provide an attractive environment with slower traffic, less street clutter and a people friendly space - all of which are welcome. However, Guide Dogs has undertaken in-depth research in to the problems of shared surface streets and potential ways forward. Guide Dogs has also been campaigning against the use of shared surface streets, supported by organisations representing disabled people across the disability sector, older people and other groups. Research and feedback identifies that shared street environments become 'no go' areas for Blind and partially Sighted people and do not contain the environmental features required to help them navigate safely e.g. kerb edges.


The Ramblers Association – No objections.

Transport for London – no comments received.

TRDC Development Plans Section - Although the site lies within the Green Belt, the outline planning application (10/2230/OUT) has established that there were very special circumstances considered to outweigh the inappropriateness of the proposals and other limited harm to Green Belt objectives.

Housing Supply

The adopted Core Strategy requires the delivery of 4,500 new dwellings between 2001 and 2026, an annual average of 180 dwellings. The Core Strategy recognises the importance of the Leavesden site to meeting needs for housing (policy PSP2 and CP2), and the site at Leavesden was identified as a housing site in the Site Allocations Preferred Options Consultation (January 2012) with an indicative capacity of 425 dwellings.

The phase 1 scheme would provide 123 new dwellings, which would contribute significantly to meeting housing targets for the District.

The phase 2 scheme would provide 99 new dwellings, which would contribute significantly to meeting housing targets for the District.

The Annual Monitoring Report 2010/11 five year land supply assessment considered that the site at Leavesden is deliverable for housing according to the requirements of Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (now superseded by the National Planning Policy Framework). The site is available, the draft allocation and outline planning permission indicate the site is suitable and the landowner has indicated that the site is achievable within five years.

The assessment anticipates completion of 65 dwellings [at Leavesden] 2013/14, 87 dwellings in 2014/15, 64 dwellings in 2015/16 and 35 dwellings in 2016/17 which contribute significantly to the Council having an identified five year land supply of 121% of the Core Strategy target. Delivery of the remaining proposed dwellings would enable the Council to maintain a 6-10 year housing supply as required by NPPF paragraph 47.

Affordable Housing

There is a very high need for affordable housing in Three Rivers, and as the largest potential housing site identified in the Site Allocations Preferred Options (January 2012), Leavesden is expected to be significant in contributing towards affordable housing provision.

Adopted Core Strategy policy CP4 requires 45% of new housing to be provided as affordable housing.

The Council resolved to grant outline planning permission (10/2230/FUL) for the site before the adoption of the Core Strategy, and the approved scheme requires 35% of the new dwellings to be affordable.

The proposed scheme would provide 43 affordable units in phase 1 (35% affordable housing). This would meet the requirements of the outline planning permission but would not meet the requirements of Core Strategy policy CP4.


Core Strategy Policy CP4 sets out that as a guide, 70% of affordable housing provided should be social rented and 30% intermediate. The proposed tenure split for phase 1 is 63% affordable rented and 37% intermediate.

Retail

The Retail and Leisure Study (June 2012) does not identify a requirement for any large scale convenience shopping provision in the District to 2026, however this does not prevent smaller scale stores to meet identified local needs located so as to reduce the need to travel.

It is noted that the flexible commercial floorspace (use classes A1, A2, A3, A5 and D1) has reduced from 2,350sqm approved at outline permission stage to 1,142sqm. Small scale retail development at this site is likely to reduce the need to travel to other centres further away as there are limited retail opportunities within walking distance of the application site.

However, the Retail and Leisure Study also highlights that Abbots Langley centre is vulnerable to impact from convenience shopping development outside the centre. The A1 floorspace to be included as part of the mixed use centre should therefore be controlled to ensure that it is only meeting local day to day needs to minimise any impact on Abbots Langley centre.

TRDC Environmental Health – no comments received.

TRDC Environmental Protection – verbally raised no objection with regards to the layout of the development and refuse vehicle access or refuse storage arrangements for the houses and flats. However, raised concern regarding the capacity of the refuse store for the commercial units. Each commercial unit would require at least one bin and possibly recycling.

TRDC Housing – Phase 1

It has been stated that are to 123 private dwellings which 43 are affordable dwellings. It is claiming that all the residential dwellings are facing outwards to enhance natural surveillance, this is the case for most of the dwellings but not for one block in question.

Affordable:- 13 x 2b flats and14 x 3b house = 27 63%

Intermediate:- 10 x 2b house6 x 3b house = 16 37%

TOTAL = 43

The ratio has been 70% - 30% and the figures are not so in this case (43 units = 70% at 30 units/30% at 13 units).

TRDC have not agreed to a 20 unit cluster, this is a discrepancy. The numbers are low with shared ownership.

Car parking

Car parking seems to be an issue, however, they are claiming to have on plot parking, on street parking and small parking courts.

193 allocated parking and 84 unallocated parking. 25 car parking is additional space for commercial use. They have made claims that the 2 bed units will be


allocated 1 space and + 0.5/0.75 unallocated space. 3 bed units should be allocated 2 allocated spaces and 0.25 unallocated spaces. Counting up the number of car parking spaces seems short, but they are claiming that there are garages as a useable space to park cars. Households tend not to park in garages, but either on a drive way or on the street, for easy access.

They are also claiming that there is street parking for visitors, it seems limited, but most likely on the street. For cycle provision there will be access to a garage or a shed, fine for the houses but not for the flatted developments. Parking does seem limited, but they are claiming that street car parking is fine and most cases houses will have garages.

Phase 2

99 dwellings and 35 will be affordable.

Affordable - 7 x 1b flat 11 x 2b flat

6 x 3b house = 24 69%

Intermediate - 6 x 2bed house 5 x 3bed house = 11 31%

TOTAL = 35

This is a better proportion of 70% -30%

10% of Phase 2 units will be for wheelchair accessible accommodation therefore 9 units will be wheelchair accessible units, will any affordable units be considered as wheelchair accessible units? More disabled parking spaces is needed.

154 allocated car parking spaces66 unallocated car parking spaces - this includes on street parking, on plot parking and parking courts.

7 x 1 bed should be allocated 1.5 allocated spaces11 x 2 bed flat should be allocated 1 allocated space + 0.5/0.75 unallocated.2 bed house should have 1 allocated space and 1.5 unallocated3 bed house should have 2 allocated space + 1.5 unallocated space.

Many housing types will have access to a garage to accommodate car - this should be used as car parking but it can not be enforced.

Parking Courts should be ideally near homes, well lit and overlooked as part of natural and CCTV surveillance. Visitors parking spaces are provided as on street parking, but must not cause disruption with flow of traffic, such as the Ovaltine which suffers from huge numbers of parking issues, some of it is commuters.

Cycle parking provision needed for flats.

It seems unlikely that there is adequate parking, as people will use garages for other uses, and use the street.

TRDC Landscape Officer - I am happy with the Tree Protection Plan and the numbers and positions of trees which it is proposed to remove and the extent and type of replanting that is proposed. All of the protected trees and most of the unprotected but category A and B trees are to be retained. The trees and


vegetation along the boundary with South Way will also be retained. This is visually important from outside of the site. Also happy with other planting proposals within front garden and shared amenity areas. I am not convinced that the new public square will work and it would appear that it will be predominantly a car park and not pedestrian friendly at all.

I am also a bit concerned about the layout of the ‘landscape wedge’ area. The detail of the play area needs to be provided including seating and litter bin provision, fencing and gates.

The footpath layout seems to encourage pedestrians to use the shared access drive to the north and focuses pedestrian activity in close proximity to the vehicular access points off South Way.

The design of the footpath network within this landscaped wedge does not appear to have evolved from anticipated desirelines. It would seem to me to be a lot more sensible to focus the main footpath link from the south directly to the pedestrian crossing point on South Way (as highlighted by me on the plan). If this is not the case, people will just walk along this route in any event, and are likely to do the same towards the residential area (part of phase 1), so this probably needs rethinking too.

Also I think a pedestrian surface finished in a buff colour would give the impression of being much higher quality than one finished in black tarmac.

Drawing D2007 L.201 shows the wider area outside of Phases 1 and 2. The large areas of amenity grass to the north of the site may provide a bit of an issue with regards their long-term maintenance. Not clear whether this would be intended to be managed by the Council or not. If an estate management company is managing the shared amenity areas, then this should be fine.

TRDC Leisure Dept – Leisure have been party to all previous legal agreements for this site. Therefore our position remains unchanged unless there are any proposed material changes to the schemes.

Veolia Water – no comments received.

Watford Borough Council – do not wish to make any formal comments.

3.2 Site/Press Notice

3.2.1 Both (major development)

3.3 Neighbourhood

3.3.1 Number consulted:In excess of 1000Number of responses: For 12/1213/AOD = 12

For 12/1214/AOD = 13 (all repeated plus one)

4. Summary of Representations

4.1 With Huntonbury village and film studios roads are already very busy; what has happened to the Green Belt?; how can building be permitted on Green Belt land; spread development into surrounding villages; headlong rush to develop with little attention seemingly been paid to the knock on effects; development too big: too dense; number of houses frankly staggering; size and scale totally inappropriate; Abbots Langley is supposed to be a village; the area is being completely saturated with new homes and green spaces eroded; the area will be unrecognisable; any further development of the space between Leavesden


and Abbots Langley will completely overcrowd the area; excessive; unacceptable in an already overcrowded area; pollution.

4.2 Concerned about impact of traffic, no mention of public transport initiatives, or services such as sewage capacity and water supply, and also education and recreation inadequate; not providing the necessary infrastructure; already shortage of school places in the area; need a new school in the area not new homes; considerable council tax will be derived via this development and yet appears to be no spending plans to overcome the strain placed on local facilities, only benefit will be to the Council; packing too many houses into an area where local facilities are already severely stretched to their limits; untold strain on Public Services;; will be an influx of possibly 200+ children in addition to other people; build a new school not more houses allowing a nice once quiet place to become overdeveloped and turning any little bit of green we still have into a concrete eyesore; no guaranteed increase to local infrastructure/services; services already overstretched and there is genuine concern; whilst monies offered there is no legal obligation to provide the services.

4.3 Local roads already very busy; will make congestion even worse; Warner Bros already increasing traffic; will be visitors/staff exacerbating traffic congestion; a raft of traffic calming measures , traffic lights and pedestrian crossings will literally make the local area an utter disaster to get out of; in addition to cars visiting the Studio the new development will increase traffic levels to unsustainable levels and put even more pressure on the already overloaded road, school and local infrastructure; particularly concerned about traffic using Ashfields; traffic already intolerable here during rush hour and this development will inevitably see a massive increase in traffic using Ashfields; no mention of how will mitigate against this increase; the developer must present credible traffic management plans for the area; already experience a large build up of traffic during rush hours along Langley Lane and this development will only increase the number of vehicles using these congested roads at peak times; the majority of the traffic is forced to either use Aerodrome Way or Leavesden High Road, both of which are Watford Borough roads, yet it is TRDC who will pocket the money from this development; existing residents will be left dealing with additional noise and pollution from the increased traffic flow; exits onto South Way dangerous as they are largely concealed; inevitable increase of traffic along South Way onto Hunton Bridge Hill, passing the junction with Gypsy Lane, will make entering and leaving Gypsy Lane even more of a lottery that it already is; will be traffic along South Way due to access points onto this road; extra 200-400 cars forced onto Langley Lane at rush hour times; already too busy in the area.

4.4 Seek reassurance the Horsesfield will remain Green Belt land for public use forever; concern that additional houses will surround the play area; need public consultation to decide on the plans for the Horsesfield; do not think messing with the Horsesfield is in any way progress for the area; field has an ecosystem which is valued in itself; it's a natural area, leave it alone; already suffered from Warner Bros digging up area for last few years and object to suffering further disruption for the next 10 years; concerned the development will proceed with an increased level of social housing without any real consideration for the existing residents.

5. Reason for Delay

5.1 Briefing report to members and ongoing discussions with applicant.


6. Relevant District Plan Provision

6.1 The Three Rivers Local Development Framework – The Core Strategy was adopted on the 17 October 2011 having been through a full public participation process and Examination in Public. Relevant Policies include: PSP3, CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP6, CP8, CP9, CP10, CP11 and CP12.

6.2 Three Rivers Local Plan 1996-2011 – The Three Rivers Local Plan 1996-2011 was adopted in July 2001 having been through a full public participation process and a Public Inquiry. Notwithstanding the adoption of the Core Strategy on 17 October 2011, the following Local Plan Policies remain Saved and are therefore applicable: GEN3, N1, N3, N4, N9, N10, N12, N13, N15, N16, N17, C14, H3, H5, D1, D4, D6, D7, T7, T8, T10, L10, L4, L11 and Appendices 2 and 3.

6.3 Relevant Supplementary Planning Documents include: Sustainable Communities SPD (adopted December 2007); Open Space, Amenity and Children’s Playspace SPD (amended April 2011); the Affordable Housing SPD (approved as a material consideration July 2011) and Parking at New Developments.

6.4 National Planning Policy Framework: On 27 March 2012, the framework of government guidance in the form of Planning Policy Statements and Planning Policy Guidance Notes was replaced by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The pre application enquiry has been considered against the policies of the Core Strategy of the Local Development Framework (adopted October 2011) and the Saved Policies of the Local Plan 1996 -2011 as well as government guidance. The adopted policies of Three Rivers District Council reflect the content of the newly introduced NPPF.

6.5 The Localism Act received Royal Assent in November 2011.

6.6 The Regional Spatial Strategy relevant to Three Rivers District is the East of England Plan adopted by the East of England Regional Assembly on 12 May 2008.

6.7 The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 and the Habitat Regulations 1994 are also relevant.

7. Analysis

7.1 Principle of Development and Design Parameters

7.1.1 The principle of the redevelopment of the site for a residential scheme with a mixed use centre has been agreed by the outline consent. These applications provide the details for the outline scheme. The Core Strategy was an emerging document at the time of this outline consent but it is not considered the Policies have changed to any extent to justify altering the Council’s view of the acceptability of a mixed use scheme on this site. As the Core Strategy was emerging at the time of determination of the outline consent due weight was also given to the Core Strategy polices in the assessment of the outline scheme. In addition the NPPF, introduced in March 2012, emphasises the Government’s commitment to sustainable economic growth and the effective use of previously developed land provided it is not of high environmental value. Whilst the site plays a limited role in defining the character of the Green Belt in this locality wildlife habitats on the site have been considered of value but these have been carefully considered and any loss mitigated for as part of the outline consent.


7.1.2 Bellway Homes intend to commence work on Phase 1 immediately which will assist the Council in meeting their 5 year housing land supply. Schedule 2 (1) of the S106 Agreement requires that no phase shall comprise less than 50 dwellings, Phase 1 and 2 meet this requirement.

7.1.3 The Masterplan submitted as part of the outline scheme was for illustrative purposes only but it did indicate how a mixed use development of the scale proposed could be accommodated on the site. The agreement of the Masterplan ensured a number of design parameters were established which these subsequent reserved matters applications have to adhere to. The design parameters ensure the site will be developed in such a way to create a clear sense of identity with the provision of a mix of homes with good connections, a variety of open spaces and a recognisable centre providing local facilities.

7.1.4 The main thrust of these design parameters have been met by the proposed reserved matters schemes for Phase 1 and 2. Phase 1 and 2 are to be developed at densities of 28 dwellings per hectare (driven by the central public open space) and 41 dph respectively in accordance with the design parameters which required ‘an average density of 40 dwellings per hectare with densities greater towards the western side of the site nearest the film studios and adjacent offices and reducing in density to the north and east.’ Distinct character areas have been maintained within the proposals. Phase 1 sits within both Park Avenue and Furtherfield Way character areas, with Phase 2 within the Furtherfield Way. These were defined within the Design and Access Statement accompanying the outline scheme as follows:

‘Park Avenue – this represents the main focus for the neighbourhood arranged on an axis from the existing offices at Leavesden Park to visually connecting to the Horsesfield. It contains a new square which will create a recognisable heart and local identity to the development.

Furtherfield Way – the proximity and scale of both Leavesden Studios and the office development at Leavesden Park affords the opportunity to develop a more compact form and character to this area. The design responds to the scale of existing office development at Leavesden Park through the creation of a step down by placing 3 storey flats or potentially 4 storey duplex apartments, facing Aerodrome Way to help define a street and provide an appropriate transition from the Leavesden Park offices to the predominantly 2 storey building heights of the development as a whole.’

7.1.5 Phase 1 incorporates the main square providing a focus for the scheme. This square is framed by a 4 and 5 storey height building (max 13.7m with roof plant extending to 18.3m, although without roof plant these heights are approximately a metre lower), comprising flatted development with commercial at ground and first floor level. These buildings are significant in scale, and are in excess of the 3.5 storey scale (up to 13m height) suggested by the design parameters recommended for this part of the site. However, the building steps down as you enter the site and it forms a landmark building to the main site entrance, as indicated by the design parameters for this corner of the development. In addition, the building reflects the scale of the office development and proposed hotel opposite (maximum 18.25m height) and articulates the main route into the development and the focus of the new square. The 1993 Planning Brief established certain ‘controls’ in developing the site, these included that the height of buildings should not exceed 18.28m AOD. This ‘control’ figure is not exceeded by the proposals.

7.1.6 As you travel north the development comprises linked semi detached dwellings and semi detached houses replaced by detached houses fronting South Way as the development responds to the openness of the Horsesfield and surrounding


development. Development is predominantly 2 storey with interspersed examples of 2.5 and 3 storey development to add interest to the street scene. Westwards the development responds to the mass of the adjacent Film Studios and the density increases with more examples of terraced housing and linked semi detached properties but predominantly remaining at 2 storey in height. Different roof forms, heights and design of buildings add rhythm and interest to the streetscape. There is a 3 and 4 storey flatted development (maximum 13m in height) proposed fronting Aerodrome Way, responding to the office development opposite. The dwellings comprises a mix 2, 3 and 4 bedrooms properties with 2 x 5 bedrooms across these Phases, however, the majority of properties are larger 3 and 4 bedroom properties.

7.1.7 However, in order to deliver 425 dwellings across the site, which reflect the densities and character specified, development in Phase 1 and Phase 2 has been compromised in terms of layout and the achievement of Three Rivers Local Plan Design Standards:

Garden sizes

The guidelines of the Local Plan suggest a minimum depth of 14m for a garden, however, this is a guideline and consideration should also be given to the size of the garden and the layout of the development. All of the proposed houses in Phase 1 and 2 will have private gardens or in the case of flats a private balcony.

The Local Plan indicative standards for garden sizes are:

2 bed – 42 sqm3 bed – 63 sqm4 bed – 84 sqm

Over 60% of the gardens comply with the indicative standards. Of the dwellings with gardens that do not meet the indicative standards 44% of the units are only between 5 and 15sqm short of this specified level. In addition, Phase 1 includes a substantial amount of public open space accessible to all units with the Horsesfield (future) public open space across South Way.

Back to back distances

The back to back separation distances between two storey and two storey and two storey and three storey properties range from 21.5m to 24.5m. These distances do not meet the guidelines detailed in the Saved Design Guidelines of the Local Plan. In support of this application the applicant's agent has stated, "whilst these separation distances between the properties is marginally below the Local Plan's aspirations of 28 metres, the layout of the proposed dwellings reflects the indicative masterplan approved at the outline stage and also the requirements of the identified Character Areas. It is considered the proposed separation distance is sufficient to provide adequate privacy for units and is appropriate in this instance."

7.1.8 These distances and garden sizes detailed in the Local Plan are indicative and their objective is to ensure new development does not lead to a gradual deterioration in the quality of the built environment. They should form a starting point against which to assess a scheme. However, in the case of a comprehensive scheme such as that proposed many elements of the development need to be balanced rather than concentrating on one or two specific aspects of the scheme at the expense of others.

7.1.9 In the case of the Approval of Details applications a key design of the scheme has been to introduce a sense of identity to the site with a range of densities


and a central communal space. This has been achieved by certain ‘character areas’ that allow a transition between the commercial office development and the Studios to the south and west to the open space of the Horsesfield and the lower density residential surroundings in the north. In achieving these densities across the site and ensuring adherence to other design parameters and standards such as a legible street hierarchy, a mix of housing and on site parking, a balance has had to be achieved between Three Rivers indicative standards and the delivery of the design principles established in the outline scheme.

7.1.10 The number of dwellings is key to this Council and its private and affordable housing supply. In the event that specific garden sizes and back to back distances are to be achieved across the scheme then Officers are unlikely to support the reduction in the number of dwellings and consequently in affordable housing, with such a design change therefore resulting in higher densities across the site in conflict with the features of the ’character areas’ and a loss of central public open space, which is a key feature of the proposals. In addition, any reduction in housing, if it was insisted upon, would likely lead to re-negotiation of the S106 Agreement, with a resulting impact on contributions secured by this Council particularly in relation to leisure and recreation.

7.1.11 The concerns expressed above and Officer’s approach to taking a holistic view of the scheme do not result in Officer’s ignoring the issues with regard to garden sizes and back to back distances as the aim is to achieve a high quality development and an attractive place for future residents to live. Nevertheless, these issues should not be considered independently but within the context of the wider scheme and in this respect it is considered that the proposals strike the right balance between residential amenity and density and the design parameters agreed at the outline stage.

7.1.12 Concern has been expressed by Officers concerning the relationship between the flatted development in both Phase 1 and 2 and the adjacent houses. In response amended plans have been received for the flatted blocks in Phase 1 improving the distance between proposed buildings albeit it is still acknowledged that a 4 and 5 storey flatted development with primary windows faces three storey properties and their rear gardens only 12-19m away (rear elevation of flats to side boundaries of properties).

7.1.13 On the 5 storey private flats which sit nearer to development at the rear (approximately 12m between the rear of the flats and the adjacent side boundaries of residential properties) balconies on the western elevation facing the adjacent private dwellings have been relocated to the sides of the building. Balconies on the side elevations would then have 1.8m screens on their side elevations to prevent overlooking to the rear. These screens would be secured by condition on any consent granted. Obscure glazing is to be added to secondary windows in these rear elevations to prevent overlooking of the houses and gardens to the rear which is acceptable as these windows are secondary windows.

7.1.14 In the remainder of the flatted development the distances to the rear boundary and adjacent properties increases to 19m. The garages of these dwellings have been relocated so they are now closest to the shared boundary, increasing the building to building distance to 22.5m. There are rear balconies and primary windows serving the flats in this rear elevation up to four storey level although only the middle part of this flatted block directly faces rear gardens. There is no direct rear to rear elevation relationship.

7.1.15 In the Phase 2 flats a side third floor terrace has been removed to ensure no overlooking of the adjacent house and garden. In addition high level secondary


windows have replaced full size widows in the eastern elevation of this flatted block to prevent any overlooking of adjacent properties.

7.1.16 There are no existing residential units that would be affected by the development proposals. Any windows in flank elevations of new properties are secondary and would be conditioned obscure glazed to prevent overlooking of adjacent properties. The adjacent Studios comprises the replacement ‘Mill’ buildings and workshop adjacent to the shared western site boundary. There are windows in the elevations facing the application site but some screening exists ie 2.5m high fencing and 1.8m high screens to elevated walkways. The proposed properties along Aerodrome Way are separated from the office development opposite in excess of 32m. The nature of the commercial units (ie daytime working hours) in addition to the relationship with the new buildings opposite (predominantly front elevations) ensures no loss of privacy would result.

7.1.17 The street scene onto Aerodrome Way in Phase 1 and 2 comprises a variety of types and height of development resulting in variety to this street scene and a contrast to the commercial development opposite. Two flatted developments, both of which have primary fenestration facing the street, are proposed in addition to some terraced affordable units and linked and detached private dwellings. There is a footway and green verges proposed to the front of the development onto Aerodrome Way. Whilst all of the development along Aerodrome Way is outward facing some of the development fronts close to the highway whilst other parts have parking and access roads onto Aerodrome Way which would be visible from the highway.

7.1.18 It is proposed that the dwellings will be constructed in a traditional style to reflect the houses in the surrounding area built with good quality brick with some render to provide variety to the street scene. The flats would be flat roofed with a light render finish, glazing and balconies. The more contemporary design of the flatted development is considered to draw on the commercial development opposite and contrasts with the more traditional form of the housing development. The approach taken to the development is tenure blind which will ensure integration between the private and affordable units. Flank elevations at the end of streets are broken up by fenestration detailing.

7.2 Commercial Proposals

7.2.1 The outline scheme secured approval for a flexible mixed use centre comprising 2,350 sqm of A1, A2, A3, A5 and D1 uses. Of this 2,350sqm floorspace Phase 1 proposes 1,284sqm of commercial floorspace (gross external) at ground and first floor level within the 4 and 5 storey buildings fronting the main square. The commercial units would front the square with active frontages. Servicing would take place at the rear with car parking provided in the main square.

7.2.2 The layout of the commercial floorspace is indicative to allow flexibility for the end users. The specific layout of the commercial floor space would be subject to the relevant conditions on the outline consent which limited the maximum floor space of each unit to 250sqm (gross external) and the range of uses to ensure the viability and vitality of the mixed use centre. In addition, a further condition would be required on any consent requiring full details of the commercial layout and fenestration of the commercial units.

7.2.3 25 parking spaces are proposed within the new square with a further 5 employee spaces to the rear of the shops/flats. Parking standards/requirements have been detailed later in this report (see Paragraph 7.4.6) although comment is made here on the layout. The previously submitted Design and Access Statement envisaged “the Square will include the opportunity for short stay parking to assist the vitality of local shops and facilities.” The 25 parking spaces


have been shown in close proximity to the commercial frontages and in a formal layout that dominates this part of the square. Whilst concern was raised that this appears to limit the opportunity for circulation in front of the shops and sitting out/congregating areas a further plan has been submitted by the applicant’s agent that details the movement around this space (D2007 SK007). The applicant’s agent has stated, “the diagram shows that the aprons of building provide break out area, spaces for external seating, from the commercial units, up to 3.5m in depth. In addition to this there is sufficient circulation space between the break out areas and the bays for parking. Additionally, within the square, there are spaces that remain car free to allow for events such as small markets. These spaces exist at both the heart of the square and to the north of the square.”

7.3 Affordable Housing Provision, Tenure, Mix and Layout

7.3.1 There is a recognised overwhelming need for new affordable housing in the District as evidenced by the Council's evidence base (SHMA, DES and Housing Register) and this scheme will ensure delivery of such housing.

7.3.2 The outline scheme proposed 35% affordable housing to be provided on the scheme, equating to 148 units. This was translated in the S106 Agreement to 34.8% affordable housing provision in each Phase. Whilst the adopted Core Strategy now requires 45% affordable provision the outline scheme was determined at the time of this emerging Core Strategy policy and this policy contained limited weight. As these applications are Reserved Matters pursuant to the outline consent the parameters of this outline scheme are to be adhered to and thus the requirement for a minimum of 34.8% affordable housing.

7.3.3 In Phase 1 43 affordable units are proposed equating to 34.8%. In Phase 2 35 affordable units are proposed, equating to just over 35%. This amount of affordable housing is in accordance with the agreed consent. Bellway Homes are in the process of selecting a Housing Association to deliver and manage the affordable units.

7.3.4 The tenure mix required in the agreed S106 was a 70:30 affordable/intermediate split in accordance with adopted Policy. This split is not achieved for Phase 1 of the scheme which proposes:

Affordable :- 13 x 2b flats and 14 x 3b house

Total: 27 equating to 63%

Intermediate:- 10 x 2b house 6 x 3b house


Phase 2 essentially achieves the relevant split:

Affordable :- 7 x 1b flat 11 x 2b flat

6 x 3b house


Intermediate:- 6 x 2b house 5 x 3b house



Notwithstanding this, the S106 Agreement states,

“Affordable Housing Tenure Mix means the following mix of tenures expressed as a percentage total number of Affordable Housing Units to be constructed:

(a) 70% Affordable Rent Units; and

(b) 30% Shared Ownership Units

Unless otherwise agreed by the Council in writing having regard to evidence of local housing need.

As such provided a 70:30 tenure split is achieved across the whole development, and this would be required as part of subsequent Reserved Matters applications for Phase 3 and 4, the proposed tenure split could be considered acceptable.

7.3.5 The units would be a mix of 1 and 2 bed flats contained in 2 blocks and 2 and 3 bed houses. Policy 4 of the Affordable Housing SPD requires that affordable housing ‘provides a range of housing sizes and/or types, including a significant proportion of family sized, two plus bedroom dwellings. In addition, when the viability of the original scheme was considered at 35% affordable housing an indicative schedule of the mix of size and type of units was agreed by the Council (Table 1). This information was never attached to the S106 Agreement as it was considered that the point at which the scheme came forward the proposals for the mix of affordable housing would need to reflect current local housing need. Notwithstanding this, the length of time between the submission of this application and the outline consent has been less than a year and thus the indicative mix figures would be relevant to consider.

Table 1:

Affordable Housing Tenure Mix – Indicative mix agreed with MEPC pursuant to the viability study on application 10/2230/OUT

House type Units TotalAffordable

Affordable Rent Units

Shared Ownership Units

1 bed flat 8 10 182 bed flat 34 14 612/3 bed house 22 10 1333 bed house 37 10 984 bed house 0 0 394 bed townhouse

3 0 67

4+ bed house 0 0 9Total 104 44 425

7.3.6 The proposed tenure mix in Phase 1 and 2 is as follows:


Table 2:

Overall Affordable Housing Provision for Masterplan Site

Affordable rent

Intermediate Total % Unit Type

1b flat 18 0 18 12.16%2b flat 48 1 49 33.11%2b house 0 30 30 20.27%3b house 35 13 48 32.43%4b house 3 0 3 2.03%5b house 0 0 0 0%Total 104 (70%) 44 (30%) 148 100%

Table 3: Phase 1 Affordable Housing Provision

Affordable rent

Intermediate Total

1b flat 0 0 02b flat 13 0 132b house 0 10 103b house 14 6 204b house 0 0 05b house 0 0 0Total 27 (63%) 16 (37%) 43

Table 4: Phase 2 Affordable Housing Provision

Affordable rent

Intermediate Total

1b flat 7 0 72b flat 11 0 112b house 0 6 63b house 6 5 114b house 0 0 05b house 0 0 0Total 24 (69%) 11 (31%) 35

7.3.7 Essentially these tables indicate that whilst the mix of units in terms of bedroom numbers/sizes is similar to that required by the Housing Officers there are no shared ownership flats proposed and there are no social rented 2 bed houses proposed.

7.3.8 On the basis that the tenure mix does not meet the previously indicated preference of the Housing Officers some concern has been raised. However, the applicant’s agent has confirmed their mix of affordable and shared ownership tenures within Phase 1 and 2 to be appropriate and respond to housing need as detailed in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2008) – Report of Study Findings (April 2010).

7.3.9 The applicant’s agent is in contact with TRDC Housing Officers to discuss this matter further.


7.3.10 In addition, comments from the TRDC Housing Officer are awaited on a recently submitted schedule of the tenure mix and their location which is required to ensure a mix of tenures across the scheme. Officers will be seeking to ensure a mix of tenures across the scheme as encouraged in the HCA Urban Design Compendium (3rd Ed) which states, “Mixing tenures promotes social diversity and it is therefore important to spread different building types and tenures across this range. ‘Pepper-potting’ different tenures throughout an area ensures that a variety of housing types and ownership patterns are sprinkled, rather than clustered into exclusive enclaves.”

7.3.11 Furthermore, Policy 5 of the Affordable Housing SPD requires, ‘that the location and distribution of affordable homes, particularly on larger developments, is crucial’ with Policy 6 ensuring the design standards for both market and affordable housing are high in terms of visual appearance, build quality and standards of accommodation. In addition to these Policy requirements, the S106 sought to ensure the integration of the affordable units by limiting the amount of properties in each affordable cluster. Schedule 3 (6) of the S106 Agreement states,

6 To provide the Affordable Housing Units:

(b) in clusters of no more than 9 Affordable Housing Units (and no cluster shall have a contiguous boundary with any other cluster)

The original applicant agreed to these terms as they reflected their aspirations for the development of the site and a mixed community as detailed in the HCA Urban Design Compendium (3rd Ed), “Mixing tenures - Good places usually offer a mix of housing opportunities. Developments should deliver a mix of tenures and housing types across all phases. Houses of different tenures should be indistinguishable when built. In distributing subsidised housing, strike a balance between pepper-potting (scattering it) and creating small groups (ideally six homes or less) for ease of management.”

7.3.12 The proposals pepperpot the development into clusters around the schemes so as to ensure it is integrated across the whole development and whilst the affordable units are smaller than the private units they are to be constructed in the same materials. However, the application seeks to increase the size of the clusters to a maximum of 18 flats in each cluster and a maximum 15 houses, in excess of the S106 Legal Agreement requirements.

7.3.10 In support of the larger clusters the applicant's agent states, the applicant wishes to have "clusters of up to 18 affordable units across the site. This variation is proposed following discussions with a number of housing associations who have identified that the size of the cluster would not be practical and would generate significant difficulties from a management perspective, particularly in relation to the flat blocks. The increase in the size of the clusters will allow the units to be effectively distributed across the 2 sites applied for, which will ensure positive integration with the private dwellings and also ensure there is a sufficient number of units to enable efficient management practices to be adopted."

7.3.11 Whilst the size of the clusters was discussed at the pre application stage the reasoning for larger clusters explained to Officers was to allow separate private and public flatted development and to ensure a viable managed block of affordable housing would be possible. Notwithstanding this the proposed plans illustrate clusters of a maximum of 15 houses and 18 flats (Table 5 below shows the proposed clusters).

Table 5:


Phase 1: Number of Units

Social Rent Shared Ownership

Cluster 1 15 houses 9 6Cluster 2 4 houses 4 0Cluster 3 13 flats 13 0Cluster 4 11 houses 2 9

Phase 2:Cluster 1 9 houses 6 3Cluster 2 8 houses 0 8Cluster 3 18 flats 18 0

7.3.12 There is concern regarding this deviation from the S106 Agreement with regard to numbers of units per cluster and the implications this would have for the aspirations for a mixed community. The potential Housing Association developer for the site, Paradigm, have suggested they have previously not had any concerns regarding clusters of this larger size. In support of the larger clusters they have stated,

“Clusters

Our preference would be to see clusters of more than the 9 units specified in the S106 agreement. We would like to see clusters of a maximum of 15 houses or 18 flats.

In our experience, this provides our Housing Officers the ideal numbers to manage in any one group. We would have a mix of rented and shared ownership within these clusters, though in flats we would want each tenure in separate cores.

We have experienced longer void periods with shared ownership units when they are in blocks with rented units.

We would hope to have a local letting plan for this development which would ensure a mix of residents. We would also have starter tenancies for the first 6 months.”

7.3.13 However, in addition to the size of the clusters (and regard must be had to how the affordable housing scheme will be delivered across the whole site) consideration needs to be had to the location and design of the clusters. The clusters proposed are outward facing and integrated across the development. A previously shown (now amended) cluster of 19 houses proposed on Phase 1 was inward facing but this has now been reduced to 15, with a further 4 units relocated, and is now outward facing.

7.3.14 Overall, Officers are willing to consider clusters in excess of the 9 contained in the S106 Agreement including for houses provided they are integrated into the surroundings by reason of their location and design to achieve a mixed use community and an integrated form of development and providing the tenure mix of each cluster is appropriate. It is noted these controls would have implications for the remainder of the Phases which would need to be considered in the future. A future Deed of Variation to the original S106 would also be required which is discussed at the end of this report.

7.3.15 Phase 1 and 2 will deliver 10% of the affordable units as wheelchair accessible accommodation in accordance with condition 40 of the outline planning permission.


7.4 Access, Parking and Servicing

7.4.1 The principle of the vehicular access into and out of the site was agreed as part of the outline consent. There have been some minor changes agreed as part of a Non Material Amendment application (ref. 12/1197/NMA) but essentially the access points agreed remain as approved. For the overall development these access arrangements incorporate two primary traffic signalled access points from Aerodrome Way and one secondary access point (reduced from two) from Aerodrome Way and 6 secondary vehicular accesses from South Way (reduced from 7) serving small clusters of units (not exceeding 6 dwellings).

7.4.2 As such Phase 1 is served by a primary access point leading from Aerodrome Way and a secondary access point further west along Aerodrome Way. In addition 2 secondary access points would be constructed off South Way to serve the northern part of Phase 1. Phase 2 is also served from the secondary access point from Aerodrome Way.

7.4.3 In accordance with the outline permission, the layout of the reserved matters for the Phase 1 and 2 schemes have been designed to ensure there is no vehicular access between South Way and Aerodrome Way. Cul de sacs off South Way are linked to the main development by pedestrian pathways. Two pedestrian access points across South Way and traffic calming measures (details of which are still to be agreed) have been secured through conditions on the outline consent or within the accompanying S106 Agreement.

7.4.4 Green Travel Plan conditions will apply as detailed on the outline consent and the S106 with the appointment of a site-wide Travel Plan Coordinator.

7.4.5 The form of the internal streets envisaged at the outline stage was shared surfaces allowing a mix of cars, pedestrians and other users without the need for separate footways. This was detailed within the Design and Access Statement, “and to assist the delivery of shared streets. Shared streets are streets where pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles are mixed within the same space, rather than being segregated into carriageway, cycleway and footpath and they are used to promote very slow speed movements of vehicles….the advantage of designing for slow speed is that it gives greater flexibility in the types of materials used which affords the opportunity for a more domestic feel to the street scene.”

7.4.6 It is now proposed that the majority of roads will be offered for adoption and so the roads, according to the applicant’s agent, have been designed to the required standards and also for a maximum 20mph speed limit. This requires, as confirmed by Hertfordshire Highways, that certain routes, specifically the primary roads, require footways and separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Hertfordshire Highways Technical Approval is still required for this layout if the roads are to be adopted. Other internal roads, whilst still proposing footways, will have numerous trees delineating their routes which will soften the formality of these roads and the segregation of ‘traffic’. Other cul-de-sacs will be private driveways or shared surfaces.

7.4.7 The Landscape Officer has raised some concerns regarding the roadside planting in terms of design context, numbers of trees and species and further details are awaited from the applicant’s agent. In addition, comments have been received from The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association detailing concerns regarding shared surfaces, “Guide Dogs has undertaken in-depth research in to the problems of shared surface streets and potential ways forward. Guide Dogs has also been campaigning against the use of shared surface streets, supported by organisations representing disabled people across the disability sector, older people and other groups. Research and feedback identifies that shared street


environments become 'no go' areas for Blind and partially Sighted people and do not contain the environmental features required to help them navigate safely e.g. kerb edges.” Any shared surfaces proposed, according to Hertfordshire Highways, do need to make provision for disabled people. Regard is had to the comments of the Guide Dogs for The Blind Association and consideration had to the extent of share surfaces proposed. Full details of the final internal road layout would require agreement before the development commenced and would be controlled by condition.

7.4.8 Car parking standards

The proposals for Phase 1 incorporate 289 parking spaces including garages. 190 of these spaces are allocated to the private residential units and within their residential curtilages, with the five bed dwellings securing 4 spaces including a double garage, four bed dwellings securing 2 spaces plus a garage, three bed houses with two spaces some including a garage and two bed houses securing two spaces each. The private 2 bed flats would have 2 spaces each. These standards comply with the maximum residential standards contained in Appendix 3 of the Local Plan.

7.4.9 With regard to the affordable units the 2 bed houses would have 1.5 spaces each (maximum standard 1.75 with 1 assigned) with the 3 bed houses securing 2 spaces each (max standard is 2 spaces). This parking would be contained in parking courts to the front of the dwellings. The 2 bed flats would have 1 space each. Whilst this provision falls slightly below the standards in the Local Plan these are maximum standards. The provision for the affordable units is considered acceptable.

7.4.10 It should be noted that the proposed garages are large compared to usual TRDC standards; 3m x 6m length to allow easy access by modern cars with some room left for storage. These make the garages much more useable than in previously agreed schemes in the District in the past. In addition the parking spaces are predominantly within the front curtilages of the private dwellings allowing ease of access although in consequence this often limits the amount of front curtilage remaining for planting.

7.4.11 Secure cycle parking is provided within each individual dwelling either within garages or garden sheds. The agent has verbally confirmed the flats will have a cycle store accommodating one cycle space per flat but this is still to be detailed on the submitted plans.

7.4.12 With regard to the commercial uses currently 25 parking spaces are proposed in the square with a further 5 employee spaces to the rear of the flats, 5% of these spaces would be disabled spaces, as opposed to the 6% required by the SPG document standards. This would need to be detailed as part of a final parking layout strategy secured by condition.

7.4.13 The outline consent gives permission for a range of uses. These uses give rise to a range of parking standards but without knowing the final occupiers of the proposed units it is difficult to detail a parking standard to be achieved. Initially an average of the car parking provision was considered but this was found to result in an excessive provision as detailed by the applicant’s agent;

“The commercial parking standards differ considerably depending on the proposed use – from 1 space per 35sqm for A1 non-food use to 1 space per 3 sqm for A5 use, to 3 spaces per consulting room for a doctor's surgery. To strictly apply the middle point of this range would result in a standard of around 1 space per 15 sqm, which would trigger a requirement for 156 car parking


spaces in the town square. This obviously cannot physically be accommodated in the scheme.

A pragmatic and sensible approach therefore needs to be taken. It is anticipated that the most likely end users will be mix of A1 and A2 uses and so it seems sensible to apply the average for these uses to the development, which results in an average parking standard of 1 space per 32.5 sqm. The parking standards then allow for provision to be 75% of the maximum standards in Zone 4, which applies to the site and is to encourage less travel by car. This would result in an average standard of 1 space per 40 sqm.

As set out in our letter, Phase 1 proposes an average of 1 space per 39 sqm visitor parking around the new public square, which would generally accord with this average. On this basis, it is considered that the proposed parking provision for the commercial uses is appropriate for the level of commercial use proposed. To increase public parking provision in the square would be to the detriment of the landscaping and public realm.”

Consideration is currently being given to this approach.

7.4.14 6 spaces for motor cycle parking and 10 covered cycle parking for commercial are proposed. An amended layout plan is awaited illustrating these details.

7.4.15 Servicing

The site will be serviced from either Aerodrome Way or South Way. Refuse storage would be within rear gardens of private and affordable houses accessed predominantly via a rear pathway/side access gates with some access taken through garages for kerbside collection. Flats and commercial units would be provided with refuse storage for both waste and recycling collection.

7.4.16 The Environmental Protection Officer has raised no objection to the site circulation and the refuse storage/collection proposals. However, they are concerned the commercial refuse storage is not sufficient. The applicant’s agent is in dialogue with Environmental Protection Officers concerning the necessary refuse capacity and relevant details are awaited.

7.5 Landscaping and Trees

7.5.1 A landscape masterplan covers the whole site and will assist in ensuring all phases of the wider scheme are integrated. A key element of the landscape masterplan is the provision of two extensive areas of new public open space which subdivide the residential areas. The main area is in Phase 1 and comprises a large public open space leading from the new public square. This area will be extensively landscaped with planting defining key routes and with pathways allowing permeability to both pedestrians and cyclists through the site. This area will also provide both formal and informal play areas. Details of the children’s play area are subject to a condition of the outline consent.

7.5.2 A number of existing trees are to be retained on site. The submitted tree report concludes, 'it is proposed to retain all of the Category A trees and the majority of Category B trees within Phase 1 and 2. Two TPO trees along the western Phase 2 site boundary will be retained’. The Landscape Officer has raised no objection to the tree/survey retention proposals or tree protection measures. Trees and hedgerows, particularly along South Way, will be retained by setting back the built development from this boundary ensuring the continued green corridor along this part of South Way and providing a softening of the new development when viewed from the north.


7.5.3 Development along Aerodrome Way will be set back to provide defensible space with areas for new tree planting. There will be new tree planting along the western site boundary with Leavesden Studios. The new square will provide a formal space comprising predominantly hard landscaping with car parking spaces located under a canopy of Maple trees. The parking bays will be defined by header courses.

7.5.4 The Landscape Officer has commented upon certain aspects of the proposed layout of the main open space and an amended plan is awaited taking into account these comments specifically relating to the footpaths across the site. In addition, there is dialogue with the Landscape Officer concerning the landscaping across the wider scheme.

7.5.5 The roads will be laid to tarmac. Paths to property frontages will be laid to slabs one and driveways to block paving. The pathways in the open spaces will be laid to a natural looking surface.

7.6 Recreation and Public Open Space

7.6.1 The 1.5ha of land reserved on the Horsesfield site will deliver the formal requirement for public open space generated by the development and will incorporate a children’s play area. The children’s play area and its content/layout is secured by the S106 Agreement accompanying the outline consent.

7.6.2 In addition there are areas of green space within the development site with opportunities for children’s play areas. The main area is in Phase 1 and comprises a wedge shaped piece of land extending northwards from the new public square. Residential units in Phase 1 (and at a later date Phase 4) will overlook this space to ensure natural surveillance.

7.6.3 Phase 1 will deliver a significant proportion of the total public open space at an early stage, including both formal and informal open space and a children's play area. Full details of this new play area will be submitted pursuant to condition 34 of the outline consent. The children's play area will be enclosed by timber fencing and timber bollards will be located to define the edge of the space.

7.6.4 In addition the Horsesfield and the former landfill tip will provide recreational opportunities for existing and new residents as they are to be bought into use as informal public open space and be integrated with Leavesden Country Park. The S106 accompanying the Studio’s planning permission secured the Horsesfield for TRDC. A future consultation exercise is to be undertaken by Three Rivers Officers to ascertain the future of this public open space but it is envisaged it will provide informal accessible space.

7.6.5 With regard to formal sports facilities Policy L4 of the Local Plan details a requirement for the provision of or enhancement of these sporting facilities. Three Rivers District Council have recently published a Playing Pitch Assessment Update (April 2010) which assesses outdoor sports facility provision in detail using methodology endorsed by Sport England.

7.6.6 Despite the concerns of Sport England on the outline consent, the Council’s Leisure department confirmed that whilst the original PPG17 work and the recent update (April 2010) highlights the shortage of junior football and rugby pitches along with good quality netball courts the reports specifically highlight that in actual fact there are enough facilities in the District, but the quality is poor, thus creating the shortage. It is recognised that all the poor quality facilities are based on school sites, as such the issue to be addressed is enabling access to improved school facilities, rather than creating more. It was considered that by securing a financial contribution towards formal sports


provision the quality of existing facilities could be improved and maintained. A financial contribution of £640, 000 was secured for formal recreation through the outline S106 Agreement.

7.6.7 With regard to formal indoor facilities Sport England referred to a need for the provision of or contribution towards the provision and maintenance of such facilities with specific reference to the Hertfordshire Sports facilities Strategy (2008). However, the Council’s Leisure department confirm that this strategy was developed prior to the opening of the new Woodside Leisure facility in Abbots Langley. This provision now meets this identified need.

7.7 Sustainability

7.7.1 Policy CP1 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011) and the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Sustainable Communities’ seek to ensure that all proposals for development incorporate sustainable principles and, where possible, energy and carbon saving measures.

7.7.2 CP1 requires development to achieve at least a 25% improvement on the 2006 Target Emissions Ratings (Building Regulations Part L) with 10% to be provided through the use of renewable energy measures. It should be noted that in 2010 the Building Regulations targets were upgraded so that the minimum requirement is now the 2006 Regulations plus 25%; this means that if a development proposal meets the 2010 Target Emissions Ratings, it already complies with the Core Strategy Policy requirement.

7.7.3 Information submitted with the outline consent (and conditions imposed on the permission) confirmed the affordable dwellings would achieve Code for Sustainable Homes 2010 Level 4 whilst private dwellings would achieve Level 3. The proposed commercial space would achieve BREEAM 2008 rating ’Very Good’ as a minimum with an aspirational target of achieving an ‘Excellent’ rating. This is still proposed.

7.7.4 The applications are accompanied by a C-Plan Energy Report. This confirms the Phase 1 and 2 development would achieve in excess of a 25% less carbon dioxide emissions than Building Regulations Part L (2006). A minimum of 10% of energy supplied on site will be generated from zero and low carbon technologies in the form of solar panels on roof slopes.

7.8 Ecology and Wildlife

7.8.1 Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 requires Local Planning Authorities to have regard to the purpose of conserving biodiversity. This is further emphasised by regulation 3(4) of the Habitat Regulations 1994 which state that Councils must have regard to the strict protection for certain species required by the EC Habitats Directive. The Habitats Directive places a legal duty on all public bodies to have regard to the Habitats Directive when carrying out their functions.

7.8.2 The protection of biodiversity and protected species is a material planning consideration in the assessment of this application. National Planning Policy requires Local Authorities to ensure that a protected species survey is undertaken for applications where biodiversity may be affected prior to the determination of a planning application. This is in line with Policy CP9 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011) which sets out the Council’s priorities for green infrastructure, which includes conserving and enhancing key biodiversity habitats and species.


7.8.3 Saved Policy N1 (Nature Conservation) of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996 – 2011 states that when determining applications for planning permission, the Council will take the likely effects of nature conservation into full account. Saved Policy N3 (Protected Species) is also relevant.

7.8.4 An Ecological Assessment was submitted as part of the original Screening Opinion for the outline consent and subsequently supported by two addendums which detail the existing habitats and species present on the site and relevant mitigation and enhancement measures to be implemented. The Ecological Assessment confirmed Phase 1 and Phase 2 ecological surveys had been undertaken on the site with an updated Extended Phase 1 habitat survey and protected species survey and an updated breeding bird survey carried out.

7.8.5 The Ecological Assessment confirmed there was no evidence of protected species inhabiting the main development site. The reports concluded, “The site is considered to offer negligible potential for supporting dormice, reptiles and great crested newts. The loss of the main site as an unlit area will have a small effect on the extent of bat foraging and commuting within the wider landscape. Badgers are recorded on the former landfill tip but using this area for informal recreational purposes is not likely to result in the disturbance of badgers. Nearby local wildlife sites would not be affected by the proposals.”

7.8.6 However, according to the 2008 survey, the site supports a ‘diverse assemblage of invertebrate species including some endangered, nationally scarce, rare and BAP species’ although is accepted that this survey covered the whole Leavesden site including the Studios site. In addition, the assessment detailed the loss of breeding bird habitats with limited details of mitigation.

7.8.7 The two addendums to the Ecological Assessment were submitted to specifically address the effects of the development on invertebrates and breeding birds and the loss of their habitats in particular three BTO Red Listed species; skylark, song thrush and linnet and three Amber listed species; whitethroat, dunnock and bullfinch on the main site. The development of the site would effectively remove all available nesting habitat for these bird species and the Ecological Assessment acknowledged the requirement for mitigation measures as a result of the loss of nesting habitat across the site. The addendums detailed the significance of this loss of habitat and its impact on breeding birds and invertebrates and detailed a package of enhancement measures on the main site and on land owned by Three Rivers DC. Officers and Natural England agreed this approach to allow habitat enhancement.

7.8.8 An ecological enhancement plan was therefore required for the main site which includes Phase 1 and 2. In addition, a programme of site management dedicated to ecological enhancement on land within the Council’s ownership was required. The S106 accompanying the outline consent agreed these ecological measures and secured the funding for these measures for a period of 30 years with a maximum annual expenditure of £2000.

7.8.9 In addition, prior to any development commencing in any Phase both detailed implementation plans for mitigation measures and up to date information on protected species was to be submitted as required by planning conditions on the original planning consent. These conditions and the requirements of the S106 Agreement ensure the protection of protected species across the site and continued habitat diversity is maintained in the vicinity.

7.8.10 Whilst Natural England have not commented on these applications they previously confirmed on the outline consent that they were satisfied with the on-site and off-site habitat enhancement for birds and invertebrates which are to be secured by conditions.


7.9 Contamination and Flooding

7.9.1 In accordance with Policy CP1 of the Core Strategy and considering the former uses of the site, a contamination report was submitted as part of the outline consent. This report concluded that whilst there may be small isolated pockets of a low level of contamination on the site, this is not considered to be a significant risk at the construction phase. Post construction there will be no risk to future residents or the underlying principal aquifer as any contaminants found to still be present will have been remediated or removed. The Environment Agency raised no objection to the application provided conditions were imposed on any consent granted. The conditions still apply on the outline consent. In addition, the Environment Agency has requested a further condition regarding drainage details.

7.9.2 Flooding

The site lies within Flood Zone 1(low probability of flood risk) and the Flood Risk Assessment concludes that the proposals will not be at an unacceptable risk of flooding and will not contribute to increased flooding elsewhere. The Environment Agency has raised no objection to the application provided relevant conditions are imposed. These conditions were imposed on the outline consent.

7.10 S106 Obligation Matters

The S106 Legal Agreement attached to the outline application 10/2230/OUT remains valid and secures a number of measures and contributions in relation to and as a result of this development. As this application is an Approval of Details which follows the parameters of this outline consent no further measures or contributions are required.

8. Recommendation

8.1 That the comments of the Officer are noted and Members add any further comments prior to the Officer engaging in further discussions with the applicant.

8.2 That if Members agree the proposed layout specifically in regard to affordable housing it is acknowledged that a Deed of Variation of the S106 Legal Agreement attached to the outline consent reference 10/2230/OUT will be required. This will specifically deal with changes to the size of the affordable housing clusters.

8.3 In addition, as part of these proposals, the applicant’s have requested the staircasing clauses contained in the S106 Legal Agreement attached to the outline consent reference 10/2230/OUT are removed. These clauses restrict any person with the benefit of a Shared Ownership Lease from purchasing more than 75% equity in the property.

8.4 Essentially these clauses would ensure that only 75% of each shared ownership units can be privately owned with the remaining 25% retained by the Housing Association. This is to ensure the shared ownership units are never lost to the private housing market with the consequence that affordable housing would be reduced across the site. These clauses were specifically required considering the very special circumstances considered in granting permission for this scheme in the Metropolitan Green Belt.

8.5 In connection with the staircasing clauses a further set of clauses requires any net proceeds from the private sale of part of shared ownership units "will be used to provide additional Affordable Housing in the Council administrative


area.” Schedule 3 paragraph 11 of the S106 requires the RSL to first seek our approval for the manner in which they wish to spend the monies and that upon submission to the Council, we have a three month window in which to agree or not.

8.6 In ongoing discussions, it is evident the staircasing as proposed presents problems for the applicant’s and their selected Housing Association specifically financial difficulties. In support of the removal of this staircasing clause the interested Housing Association, Paradigm, have stated,

“Staircasing

Currently the clause requires staircasing to be limited to a maximum of 75% of value. At anything less than 100% staircasing we would be unable to proceed. Usually a restriction, normally 80%, applies in rural areas. We would not proceed with schemes where there is this restriction. On schemes where the 80% restriction arises because it is in a Designated Protected Area, we would again avoid these schemes, unless we are able remove the shared ownership from our HCA programme.

Generally, Section 106 agreements allow shared owners to staircase out to 100%.

In the current economic climate, first time buyers are already struggling to get on the housing ladder and this restriction will limit their ability further. Our aim is to help these people who are unable to access home ownership privately and any restrictions on staircasing limit this ability.

We have received advice from an independent financial adviser, specifically on this site. He has said that the lenders would want to limit their exposure and would only lend on a maximum of 25% of the units, therefore we would require a minimum of 4 lenders. The restriction on staircasing causes further problems and Woolwich, Abbey, Leeds and Kent Reliance will not lend. We are therefore left with only 2 who will lend - Halifax will require a 20% deposit and Nationwide will require a 15% deposit on houses and 25% deposit on flats.

We have around 25 units which staircase out annually, which is between 2-3% of our shared ownership stock. The majority of this are 1 and 2 bed flats, where the owner wants to move to a larger home and staircases out rather than selling their share.”

In addition, to this information Officers are still awaiting financial information which will corroborate the views of the Housing Association. In addition, Officers are awaiting confirmation there is no proposed amendment to the net proceeds clauses. Until this information is received it would be difficult to take a comprehensive view on the deed of variation proposals. Members will be updated verbally at Committee.
